There is a huge problem with this tact at approach for this argument,
There really shouldn't be any country borders, because countries are imaginary entities.
However, the closer you get to your actual property, the more right you have to say to keep out.
Tens of thousands of UN soldiers could be living in The US, and no one would know.
A heard of muslims could come together and start a city in the Dakotas, like LDS started a city in Utah, and no one would know, or really care.
However, the truth is these "immigrants" are not coming to become part of our society, they are coming to be a scab on the system. To not integrate, but destroy. And they are coming to our cities, our actual property.
Further, those behind DACA have other plans. They are not nice souls, who want to help. They are hell bent on destruction. They want as many welfare burdens as possible. They want disruption. They want societal destruction.
So, although you make some good points, I do not agree, because I do not believe the premises are correct.
Nancy should not be opening up her house, she should be being tried for treason against america.
KA and CHING
You missed the point of this article and why I took this approach.
You are focused on the motives of the big actors pushing this and using propaganda against the people.
I am trying to get the people to see the reality of this. Asking them to think of this in terms of their home, and their property will hopefully personalize it more and perhaps they'll begin to shake off some of this bullshit propaganda.
The big actors also want a lot of illegals here so they can get their votes.
I think you did a good job acknowledging the challenges in comparison due to scale. The pairing of open borders and a welfare state, regardless of scale, removes the incentive for participation in work and decreases the value of the work by active participants since a fraction will be going to care for others. While the USD has plenty of help from the reserve's printing, this pairing is removing buying power at an even more accelerated rate and pushing more citizens toward the poverty line.
I consider it simplistic to label all immigrants as intentionally destructive or malicious, it is likely that many don't consider national implications of their immigration in comparison to their personal gain (clearly that is ignorant, but that is not the argument). A value-contributing immigrant won't ignore the opportunity to pursue happiness offered by open immigration.